Could a lawyer who serves as president of a town's board of trustees also be the town's paid attorney in its legal work?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether it would be illegal or unethical for a lawyer who is also the president of the board of trustees of an incorporated town to represent that town as its attorney in necessary legal work or litigation, and to be paid a fee for it.

The Board pointed to Section 5963, O.S.1931 (62 Okl. St.Ann. § 371), which provides that no board of trustees of any town, among other local bodies, "shall make any contract with any of its members, or in which any of its members shall be directly or indirectly interested," and that all contracts made in violation of the section "shall be wholly void." The Board concluded that the proposed arrangement would be contrary to the public policy of Oklahoma as expressed by that statute, so the answer to whether it would be illegal or unethical was necessarily "yes."

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1936, decades before Oklahoma replaced its original Rules of Professional Conduct (patterned on the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics) with the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (adopted 1988) and the later Ethics 2000 revisions. The statute it relied on, Section 5963 of the 1931 Oklahoma Statutes, and the rule numbering of that era may since have been amended or renumbered. Subsequent rule and statutory amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a lawyer on a town board be hired as the town's lawyer?

A: Not under this opinion. The Board held the arrangement contrary to Oklahoma public policy because a statute voids any town-board contract in which a member is interested.

Q: What made it improper, the rules or a statute?

A: The opinion rested on Section 5963, O.S.1931, which voids self-interested contracts of a town board, and treated the proposed arrangement as contrary to the public policy that statute expresses.

Background and rules framework

The opinion turned on Section 5963, O.S.1931 (62 Okl. St.Ann. § 371), Oklahoma's statutory bar on local boards contracting with their own members, treating the proposed arrangement as contrary to the public policy that statute expresses. It cited no rule of professional conduct, and it predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Section 5963, O.S.1931 (62 Okl. St.Ann. § 371): no town board of trustees may make a contract with, or in which, any of its members is directly or indirectly interested; such contracts are wholly void.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 112: A mayor taking a fee interest in city litigation
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 90: Prosecutor with a personal interest in the case

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-111/

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Adopted June 19, 1936

The Board is in receipt of the following inquiry:

"Would it be illegal or unethical for a member of the Bar who is also the president of board of trustees of an incorporated town, to represent such town as its attorney in necessary legal work or litigation and to be paid a fee therefor?"

In response:

Section 5963, O.S.1931, 62 Okl. St.Ann. § 371 provides:

"No board of county commissioners, nor city council, nor board of trustees of any township, or town, nor any district board of any school district in this State shall make any contract with any of its members, or in which any of its members shall be directly or indirectly interested; and that all contracts made in violation of this section shall be wholly void."

The proposed arrangement would be contrary to the public policy of the State of Oklahoma as expressed by the foregoing section of the statute.

The answer to the question is necessarily "yes."